Author Topic: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence (Read 1276 times)

Mr G · « **on:** October 22, 2018, 12:21:07 PM »

https://akacatholic.com/viganos-third-testimony-points-to-bergoglios-negligence/

from Louie:

To the horror of corrupt churchmen in positions of power everywhere; in particular those in the Vatican, Archbishop Carlo Viganò has just released his third in a series of scathing testimonies.

Readers will recall that in testimony number two, Viganò made the following plea to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops:

You (Ouellet) have at your complete disposal key docuмents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

Being the slippery Bergoglian that he is, Ouellet responded in part by denying allegations that Viganò never made, stating in a letter made public on October 7:

The written instructions given to you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your mission in 2011 did not say anything about McCarrick, except for what I mentioned to you verbally about his situation as Bishop emeritus and certain conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct … After a review of the archives, I find that there are no docuмents signed by either Pope in this regard.

In his most recent testimony Archbishop Viganò points out, however, that he never claimed the existence of a docuмents bearing the pope’s signature, or even one issued in follow-up to a papal audience (ex-Audientia SS.mi):

My testimony is that there are other docuмents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.

Here, in addition to calling Ouellet out for his deceptiveness, Viganò identifies a specific docuмent, and what’s more, he once again directly named Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, and indirectly two members of the Secretariat of State. This, no doubt, is meant to turn the heat up on Re who has thus far refused to speak of the matter publicly.

Though Archbishop Viganò did not point this out in his latest testimony, Ouellet did, even if only inadvertently, affirm that docuмents do in fact exist relative to the restrictions that were placed against McCarrick. He wrote:

Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church.

So, Cardinal Ouellet, where are those letters and what do they say?

Regardless of the letters’ contents, Ouellet let another major cat out of the bag; one that isn’t receiving nearly enough attention: Ouellet referred to “certain conditions and restrictions that he [McCarrick] had to follow.” [Emphasis added]

In this, Ouellet is admitting that McCarrick was not simply being urged to consider leading a life of prayer and penance; rather, restrictions were being imposed on him coercively and “he had to follow” them. McCarrick’s disobedience in the matter in no way negates what Ouellet has revealed.

Furthermore, the Congregation for Bishops, according to its official profile, does not place restrictions on any of the bishops. At most, it merely passes them along and monitors them.

NB: Sanctions against a bishop – in this case, a cardinal no less – can come from only one person, as the following citation from The Jurist, a scholarly journal published by the Catholic University School of Canon Law, demonstrates:

The pope alone has coercive power over a bishop; the Roman Curia cannot take any penal action against a bishop, or even threaten him with a penalty, without the express approbation of the pope. (See John M. Huels, “The Correction and Punishment of a Diocesan Bishop,” THE JURIST 49 (1989): pg. 540)

Clearly, if conditions and restrictions that McCarrick had to follow existed – as Ouellet himself confirms – they had to come from the pope.

In reaction to Viganò’s testimony number three, the portion that has received the most attention thus far is the following:

The underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the priesthood and in the hierarchy… This is a crisis due to the scourge of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform.

Yes, the Church has a major clerical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity problem, but that’s not the most pressing one, and although Archbishop Viganò does not categorize it as such, he does make mention of a matter of far greater import when he states:

… the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Homo-clerical predators behaving badly is a problem to be sure, but the real crisis is doctrinal. It is also liturgical. As I’ve written on any number of occasions, the bottom line cause of the present crisis is the loss of faith and the abandonment of the Church’s mission that was institutionalized at Vatican Council II, as well as the new Mass that it inspired.

Until these problems are fixed – that is, condemned in their entirety – the crisis will go on. That said, as Viganò’s testimony suggests, the more immediate problem concerns the man known as Francis, about whom Archbishop Viganò wrote:

I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter … He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).

In this, Archbishop Viganò is making a huge assumption; namely, that Jorge Bergoglio is not only a member of the Body of Christ, he is also its visible head on earth – a man who presently benefits from the graces bestowed upon the occupant of the Office of Peter.

With every passing day, the consciences of those in possession of sensus Catholicus are increasingly urging them to call into question the archbishop’s assumption. This will be the topic of my next post.

In preparation for it, please take a moment to read John Salza’s recent Remnant article, Has Pope Francis Lost His Office for Heresy?

If, in spite of its sincere, methodical and teacherly tone you should come away confused, don’t fret; I suspect you are in the majority.

MMagdala · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2018, 04:01:46 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on October 22, 2018, 12:21:07 PM

https://akacatholic.com/viganos-third-testimony-points-to-bergoglios-negligence/

from Louie:

Homo-clerical predators behaving badly is a problem to be sure, but the real crisis is doctrinal. It is also liturgical. As I’ve written on any number of occasions, the bottom line cause of the present crisis is the loss of faith and the abandonment of the Church’s mission that was institutionalized at Vatican Council II, as well as the new Mass that it inspired.

Until these problems are fixed – that is, condemned in their entirety – the crisis will go on. That said, as Viganò’s testimony suggests, the more immediate problem concerns the man known as Francis, about whom Archbishop Viganò wrote:

THIS, a hundred times. And anyone who doesn't understand this does not understand Tradition, period. There are posters on this website and on other traditionally oriented sites who clearly have not been educated in this essential fact. Overhaul from the core is needed, not extrinsic changes and gestures.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** October 25, 2018, 12:09:09 AM »

.
Michael Matt did a 24-minute video on Oct. 22nd.
.

.
Matt has a different approach -- that we ought to be publicly behind Vigano, supportive of him, because the Vatican fears Vigano.
.
They fear him because he is forming a cohesive bloc of faithful Catholics who are ready to do something about the corruption.
.
I tend to agree more with Verrechio, that the problem isn't primarily pederasty, rather it's doctrinal, and Vat.II is the blister that needs to be popped.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** October 25, 2018, 02:28:34 AM »

.
More links:
.
https://akacatholic.com/council-of-trent-declares-let-francis-be-anathema/
.
https://akacatholic.com/papal-loss-of-office-automatic-or-semi-automatic/
.
https://akacatholic.com/john-salza-remnant-convict-former-traditional-catholics/
.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #4 on:** October 25, 2018, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote

Homo-clerical predators behaving badly is a problem to be sure, but the real crisis is doctrinal. It is also liturgical.

They all go together, but to be accurate it is not homo clerical predators, it is homo clericals. You can't have one homo priest, let alone the up to 50% that you have today.

Nadir · « **Reply #5 on:** October 25, 2018, 03:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 25, 2018, 11:43:22 AM

They all go together, but to be accurate it is not homo clerical predators, it is homo clericals. You can't have one homo priest, let alone the up to 50% that you have today.

I can't make sense of what you are saying. Can you explain please.

songbird · « **Reply #6 on:** October 25, 2018, 04:57:41 PM »

I know this is a scandal, but the biggest of All, where the clergy, phonies, are not tossed out, or screamed at, is over the loss of sacraments, that destroy souls!!

I know the perverts area a horror, body/emotional hurt and pain, BUT They devour souls for Satan with no sacraments! No Precious Blood! Vigano is just one of ALL, who does just this, no sacraments. What makes him so high and mighty and someone to look up to. Give me a break!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 25, 2018, 05:02:09 PM »

At least he's standing up for something in the moral realm, just like some of those Cardinals did against Amoris Laetitiae.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anything that begins to expose these men for the wicked scoundrels that they truly are can't be all that bad. Perhaps the teflon Bergoglio has against being attacked by the media might have worn really thin here. One more proverbial feather on the camel's back, and Bergoglio could be forced or shamed into stepping down. Not that there's any guarantee that his successor won't be another heretical usurper, but at least it sets some things into motion that might eventually lead to a restoration.

If people wake up to the fact that the Conciliar hierarchy is morally corrupt, then they might begin questioning everything else about them, including their doctrine. It could lead to a bit of a paradigm shift with regard to the hierarchy. When Wojtyla walked on water among conservative Catholics, no criticism would ever stick to that "saintly man".

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** October 25, 2018, 06:38:04 PM »

.
It could lead to a bit of a paradigm shift with regard to [their perception of] the hierarchy.
.
If their paradigm isn't shifting yet, one must wonder: what else is it going to take to shift it?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** October 25, 2018, 06:39:40 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 25, 2018, 12:09:09 AM

.
Michael Matt did a 24-minute video on Oct. 22nd.
.

.
Matt has a different approach -- that we ought to be publicly behind Vigano, supportive of him, because the Vatican fears Vigano.
.
They fear him because he is forming a cohesive bloc of faithful Catholics who are ready to do something about the corruption.
.
I tend to agree more with Verrecchio, that the problem isn't primarily pederasty, rather it's doctrinal, and Vat.II is the blister that needs to be popped.

.
I misspelled Verrecchio.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 25, 2018, 06:56:16 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 25, 2018, 06:39:40 PM

.
I misspelled Verrecchio.

That'll be 7 years in Purgatory for you !

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #11 on:** October 25, 2018, 07:23:24 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 25, 2018, 11:43:22 AM

They all go together, but to be accurate it is not homo clerical predators, it is homo clericals. You can't have one homo priest, let alone the up to 50% that you have today.

They all go together the homo infiltration into the Vatican II church and the doctrinal and liturgical changes. Then I corrected the description made by the article writer: The problem is not just homo predators, it is ALL homo clerics whether they are predators with young children, or sodomites with adults, or celibate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 25, 2018, 08:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 25, 2018, 07:23:24 PM

They all go together the homo infiltration into the Vatican II church and the doctrinal and liturgical changes. Then I corrected the description made by the article writer: The problem is not just homo predators, it is ALL homo clerics whether they are predators with young children, or sodomites with adults, or celibate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

So you're really going to put a celibate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the same category as a predator and sodomite? Sure, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs shouldn't be admitted to the clerical state at all, for various reasons, including that there's a much greater tendency to act on the inclinations when those inclinations are already disordered and contrary to nature. But who's worse, a straight priest who's committing adultery with the parishioner's wives or a celibate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who is serious about keeping his vows?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** October 26, 2018, 02:08:26 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 25, 2018, 02:28:34 AM

.
More links:
.
https://akacatholic.com/council-of-trent-declares-let-francis-be-anathema/
.
https://akacatholic.com/papal-loss-of-office-automatic-or-semi-automatic/
.
https://akacatholic.com/john-salza-remnant-convict-former-traditional-catholics/
.

.
Louie Verrecchio has a couple of videos with BoR Francis speaking Espanol, and the English subtitles take a few liberties.
These are videos the Vatican released, but in Spanish, so Louie helped out with his own style of subtitles!
(This means he gives a sort of between-the-lines interpretation while he translates, as it were, a sort of paraphrase, if you will.)
He says he got in trouble for this, but when he filed a counter complaint that he has liberty in translation nuances he got reinstated.
Maybe that works with Vimeo but not sure about YouTube. Anyway, this was Vimeo.
.
.
"THE POPE VIDEO -- HERETIC COLLECTION"
"Translation provided by your friends at: akaCatholic.com"
.
Many people either do not know, or plainly reject, Jesus Christ.
The Church's mission is to call them to conversion.
Like St. Peter, every pope is duty bound to baptize and to teach the nations.
(A woman says) I trust in a dead sage called "the Buddha."
(Man wearing yarmulke says) I reject God by rejecting Christ.
(Man wearing Roman collar says) I'm clueless.
(Man says) I follow a false prophet, the pedophile Muhammad.
(Bishop of Rome Francis says) Unlike St. Peter, I have no interest in carrying out the Church's mission.
-- I enjoy the esteem of men; honoring their false gods, and encouraging them in their rejection of the one true faith.
-- With each of these, there is one thing I share: the denial of Jesus Christ.
(Buddhist woman) I deny Jesus Christ.
(Jєωιѕн man) I deny Jesus Christ.
(Moslem man) I deny Jesus Christ.
(Catholic priest) I deny Jesus Christ.
(BoR Francis) I pray you will join me in spreading false hope:
-- That authentic peace and justice can be attained apart from truth, by the practice of just any religion.
-- After all, isn't Jesus Christ just one among many?
___________________________________________________
Another video has this translation:
.
In the vastly diversified cultural world of Asia, the Church is just one religion among many.
I'm Cool with that. After all, proselytism is solemn nonsense.
And those other religions? I'm cool with them too.
Like those blissful bundle burning Buddhists,
Those tranquil Taoists, those selfless seeking Sikhs, and those Asians who carry lit candles for no apparent reason.
Don't be one of those rascally rigid rosary counters!
Rather, place yourself on the side of those men and women who reject Christ!
Join me in standing up for their right to refuse His saving grace!
And then one day, maybe you'll be like me: Free from slavery to Sacred Tradition and the confines of Catholic doctrine!
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** October 26, 2018, 02:11:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 25, 2018, 06:56:16 PM

That'll be 7 years in Purgatory for you !

.
And that was AFTER I confessed my error.
Imagine what you'll get after not confessing! :o

Author Topic: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence (Read 1276 times)

Mr G

Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

MMagdala

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Last Tradhican

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Nadir

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

songbird

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Ladislaus

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Ladislaus

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Last Tradhican

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Ladislaus

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence

Neil Obstat

Re: Viganò’s third testimony points to Bergoglio’s negligence